Jump to content

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
Latest comment: 3 hours ago by Ovruni in topic Xena4patas

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Note

  • Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:~2025-36927-86

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Block evasion. We should consider restrictions on what new accounts can do. I am sure there are more than below. Most already blocked. --RAN (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gisella Marengo - 66th Venice International Film Festival, 2009.jpg you wrote that the nominator ~2025-36927-86 is blocked, but I see they are not. You say this is block evasion, but don't say here what is the account in question, and the action itself doesn't seem enough for a block. Who are you saying this is? (I realize I could probably do some sleuthing and work it out but I only have so much time for each thing that comes up.) - Jmabel ! talk 06:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I blocked-86 as a precaution Gbawden (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

~2025-34613-24 does indeed look like a vandal, I will block.

Someone else can look into the others. - Jmabel ! talk 06:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added a missing digit for RAN.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I blocked ~2025-37392-02 and ~2025-37643-99 today. Whack a mole!
Gbawden (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Comment I created Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/~2025-36927-86 and I'll look into a range block when I get off work. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: any further upshot? - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I did apply one range block but that's all. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Schestos

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Schestos (talk · contribs)

He passes off other people's photos as his own. When asked, he claims to have permission to do so. Someone should take a look at all his uploads; they all look like copyright infringements to me. The origin of the photos is completely unclear; most of them are obviously selfies of the people depicted and contain no metadata whatsoever. I find this very suspicious. In addition, he has now repeatedly removed the copyvio template from his own photo: Special:Diff/1122781015.

I addressed this with him on his discussion page, but I am far from convinced by his response. Stepro (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Stepro: I just dropped a note on their page (under your exchange with them) suggesting strongly that they read COM:THIRD. As I'm sure you know, there are several tricky issues involved in uploading third-party materials, and I find it is usually best to aim people at that page for an overview. We'll see if they absorb it or not. Not sure if any further action is needed at this time. - Jmabel ! talk 05:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I really don't think this needs to be posted here. I'm only human, I can make mistakes. And I've already fixed the authorship, but I don't know how to do VTR properly. Schestos (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't have a problem with mistakes, which is why I wrote to you on your discussion page first. Repeatedly removing the copyvio templates by yourself is already very borderline.
But what I do have a big problem with, however, is lying to us here:
  • You claim here that you took the photo yourself with your phone.
  • Then you state here that the source of the photo is Jamilla Rankin.
Both of these statements cannot be true.
And that is precisely why I opened this section here. Not because of possible mistakes, but because of the lack of credibility of your statements. Stepro (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Again, my bad. I was hastily trying to correct information that I obviously fucked up. Schestos (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@User:Schestos, please do read COM:THIRD. You are headed the right direction, but you still haven't done what would be needed to retain these pictures. Read that, work out which ones you think are salvageable, start the process to salvage them, and on any that cannot be salvaged please if there is already a deletion request, indicate overtly that those particular files can be deleted, and if there are files that cannot be salvaged and aren't nominated for deletion, start that process yourself. Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 23:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
All can be saved. I don't see how they couldn't be. Schestos (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@User:Schestos: so you believe you can get explicit licenses properly issued by all photographers involved? That is a much higher standard than I would have held you to, and I will be impressed if you achieve it. - Jmabel ! talk 03:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I said CAN. That doesn't mean will be able to. Technically one could contact them via DMs, but chances are they may not see the message or might discard it as spam. Someone could try emailing Football Australia and maybe they know? Schestos (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this calls for further administrative action at this time, but I do believe it would be appropriate to reassess the situation in a month and see if there are still images hanging out without even pending permission requests. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:6D bulk uploading Flickr accounts

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago32 comments13 people in discussion

This user seems to be bulk-uploading entire Flickr accounts to Commons, picking one account at a time and uploading every photo from it.

Many of these uploads have generic "DSCN1234.jpg" filenames and no description, and are given no category, so are a long way from ever being found or used for anything. 6D has had at least four talk page requests asking them to give the uploads meaningful names and/or categories, but hasn't acted on or responded to this. They may not be checking their talk page.

Randomly sampling 6D's upload history, their intention may be to find Flickr users who have useful photos of cars and airplanes, and then to indiscriminately import everything from those accounts to Commons - including blurry selfies (File:Charaka & Me (5811241710).jpg) and close-up photos of copyrighted packaging (File:SPAM 2009 (3221827762).jpg).

To take one such Flickr account, https://www.flickr.com/photos/contri/ has 4045 photos on Flickr. A search for their Flickr username returns 4,011 photos on Commons. A lot of these were uploaded selectively in the past by other Commons users, but 6D uploaded at least a couple of thousand of them last month, including (as with SPAM 2009 above) photos that have been deleted from Commons before. Many of these have generic filenames and no description.

Is this kind of mass importing a net positive for Commons, for archiving Flickr photos that may otherwise end up lost? Or does the required cleanup by other Commons users, and the risk of copyvios, outweigh the benefit? Belbury (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • No, it's not a net positive. If they're uncategorised, they're basically useless. Especially if the filenames are bad. I'm interested to hear 6D's comments on this, before saying any more. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sigh. Yet another flickr mass uploader who refuses to curate files. I see dozens of copyvio and scope warnings, and multiple requests from users to improve filenames and categorizations, yet no change in behavior. Unless they can come up with a truly stunning response here, I will partial-block from uploading. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Agree with above, I think uncurated mass uploading is a net negative to Commons, since it will take more time and resources for other users to categorize, rename and check for copyvio/scope after the files are uploaded. And as long as they are not cleaned up, they are more useless than them not being uploaded, as it prevents other users who would curate them to upload these images.
  • For the amount of uploads this user has done recently (tens of thousands!), it is unreasonable to expect other users to clean up after them. So, I support restricting their ability to upload until they are willing to cleanup all their previous uploads. Thanks.
Tvpuppy (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Through 6D's activities on COM:UNDEL and in DR, I formed the opinion that they have a penchant for a somewhat relaxed interpretation of copyrights and COM:PRP. This may be a (perhaps minor) point to be taken into account when dealing with this report, but I would support the ideas of Belbury, Andy and Tvpuppy (not a net positive for the project due to a lack of curating and it makes sense to restrict the uploading ability). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Some of their more recent uploads (their last few hundred are cars) at least have meaningful file names. I suggest we strongly warn them that they are required to provide some meaningful information about their uploads—description, categories, or file names—but if this is ignored, a partial block seems to be the way to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
The meaningful file names are taken automatically from the Flickr sources. I don't know if it's by chance or choice that the last few Flickr accounts User:6D has transferred have been users that named their own files. Belbury (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
6D here, I am sorry about that, I will categories many images that I uploaded as possible. 6D (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@6D: That is a good start,, but please provide more detail about how you are going to clean up your uploads and how you will avoid similar issues in the future. You have uploaded over 140,000 files, almost all of which need cleanup - not just categorization, but also filenames, descriptions, and copyvio/scope deletions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
In the meantime, 6D added an author category (Category:Photographs by km30192002) to several hundred uploads from April 2022. Yet 6D also uploaded another ~1400 new files without categories (during three periods of activity around 01:50 UTC, around 05:30 UTC and around 10:00 UTC). -- Gauss (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
6D has uploaded 1063 more files in the last five hours. They've also batch-categorised several thousand more of their earlier uploads into Category:Photographs by km30192002 and 246 to Category:Photographs by Samson Ng. These categories aren't especially useful for navigation, though.
Unless I'm overlooking some other edits, 6D has only manually added actual descriptive categories to four files, among those thousands of others, putting File:Airbus A330-223.jpg, File:Boeing 737-84P - 49603785707.jpg and File:Boeing 767-332(ER).jpg into relevant aircraft categories and File:Boeing 737-39K(SF).jpg into a redlinked category that hasn't been created yet.
@6D: Could you put the bulk uploading on hold for a while, and engage with the discussion here about your understanding of the situation and your intentions going forward? Belbury (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
2000+ more uploads overnight, again only two or three files given descriptive categories and the rest trivially batched into low value "Photographs by..." categories. It's helpful that the files currently being batch uploaded have meaningful filenames on Flickr, but I don't know if that's just by chance. Belbury (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
For the upload files, Yes 6D (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@6D unfortunately most of the ways that people find images online, especially on Commons, are text-based so without descriptions, categories, and meaningful file names, uploading images to Commons is almost completely useless because nobody can find it. For example, File:Idk (54451446496).jpg could be a useful illustration of that river or that bridge or the area where the photo was taken or of concrete bridges over water in that area or any number of uses that somebody else could think of. But with a name like "Idk (54451446496)", no categories, and no description, I don't know where that bridge is or which river it crosses; I can't even guess which country it's in, so if I'm looking for a photo of that river, I have no hope of finding it. And without any context, even people who enjoy making files easier to find have nothing to work with, which means the file will likely never be discovered or used. Does that help explain why people are concerned here? There are other concerns, like copyright and scope, but those would be easy to address if it weren't for the scale of your uploads. Harry Mitchell (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Because if the file without meaningful filenames and no category, it is very hard to find. 6D (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I, 6D, promises that I must need to do this things when uploading files and moving Flickr images to Commons:
  • Having meaningful file names as possible. If not, a category must be added as fast as possible, if I don't have the knowledge for a specific file, do some research about it. If that's not sufficient, place it in a specific cleanup category (such as Category:Unidentified buses) or create a category named “Photographs by (Name)” (place it in if the photographer names category already exist) and place it in User:6D/Categories. However, even a file having meaningful file names, having categories and descriptions are recommended.
  • I would not upload files that out of scope, blatant copyright violations, and random personal photos. If I mistakenly uploaded these images, send deletion requests or speedy deletion requests as fast as possible.
  • I will clean up my past uploads as possible and I will avoid similar issues in the future.
Failure to do this will result user warning on my talk page, if I have 2 user warnings on my talk page, I will have listing consequences:
2 User warnings = 1 Admin warning
1 Admin warning = Pinging me and Report to COM:ANU
2 Admin warnings = Restrict the uploading ability for 7 days
3 Admin warnings = Restrict the uploading ability for 1 month
4 Admin warnings = Restrict the uploading ability unless I cleanup all of my uploads (fix filenames, descriptions, and categories) 6D (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Special:ListFiles/Vaibhav1506

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

All uploads since 2025 appear to be copyvios. Please perform a mass delete operation. 0x0a (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@0x0a: If you are bringing a case to COM:AN/U you are supposed to notify the user on their talk page. I will do it this time. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
They are continuing to upload, and have not come here to discuss, so I will see if a 2-week block will get there attention. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done blocked for 2 weeks. - Jmabel ! talk 02:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Rezaei az

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Keeps adding unrelated categories to their uploaded files and reverting my edits. I have already explained this via email to them, but they doesn't understand. Nemoralis (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

We count you as a vandalizer. You called a political movemen fictional with no proof. Rezaei az (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Who is "we"? Nakonana (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Nemoralis, can you name some examples, please? Msb (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
[1][2]. Rezaei also recreated a previously deleted file: [3]. Nakonana (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Judging by the edit summary[4] this is promotional content. Nakonana (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Their statement on enwiki (while logged out)[5] confirms the promotional intentions. The whole thread: [6]. Nakonana (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yep, that's enough for me. I just G10ed all of their uploads and left them the scope warning template. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:MCAACM

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago7 comments5 people in discussion

User has recently uploaded a large amount of images with "Wikipedia" as a source, in other words faking a large amount of uploads. An example is this one where the user also has proceeded to add the photo to all the Wikipdeia articles listed on the page. I can find no good faith in this, since I know of the same user's very problematic behavior on Swedish Wikipedia where h/s had been blocked several times for intentional mischief. Here, I recommend a firm block at once so as to prevent further damage. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

and don't forget to delete all their uploads, because any rights statement by this person can't be trusted. DS (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week, but mass deletion of the uploads is not correct, some of the uploads are good. Taivo (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Comment Please no nukes. It appears that the user was careless when it came to properly citing sources, but in terms of image rights, there is no problem with the images I have now evaluated. --Msb (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

What images have you evaluated as OK? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Pinging @Mosbatho, since SergeWoodzing did not ping. Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I cannot tell you anymore they got all nuked, just one did survive. It was an image that was obviously a cropped version of an existing one; that existing one was published under a free license. @SergeWoodzing, ping in future, please. Msb (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:The Wiki Historian's reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

License laundering (see contribs) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

And deleting warnings, including the one to come discuss this here.
✓ Done 2 week block. It is possible that not every problematic file is undergoing a DR or speedy, but anyone can deal with that, doesn't need an admin. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

User contributions for Lk1155

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago19 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, request admin assistance with this editor please. They are editing at very high speed, overcategorising and adding code to category pages that causes categories not to display. I have visited their talk page twice with minimal acknowledgement. Link for contribs: [7]. I am au fait with aircraft engine categories and file naming, the mess would take me a few days to sort out. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

One edit per minute seems superhuman, is a bot or script being used perhaps? Nimbus227 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Strong warning sent to come here and discuss. I'd prefer that we give them a chance to answer here before we take any other action. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, reverting the categories I added incorrectly is quick because I'm backtracking my own steps. I was using copy and paste to add a new category to photos of engines that only had a location category (e.g., the museum), but no specific category for the engine model.
And yes, I misunderstood "categories" (both overlapping multiple categories and using a summary), so I ended up creating some entangled subtrees after adding multiple categories for the same photos, which is what I was reverting.
Some categories are more hierarchical/granular than others, like the Tupolev SB (or the Ki-43) compared to the Tupolev Tu-2, so I can temporarily add a category to photos without a category.
If that's too troublesome, I'll stop. Lk1155 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
The category structure for aircraft and aero engines is very simple, as are the vast majority of categories on Commons. High speed editing was happening long before the self-reversions, no tools (i.e. Cat-a-lot) are noted in the edit summaries. If these are human edits then no thinking time exists and no checking that an edit has not broken the page (the purpose of the 'show preview' button) is being carried out. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's ambiguous for companies with a large variety of engines or joint ventures, ie: Eurojet EJ200, BMW, RR, Junkers. Talking about the aeroengines sub-trees, of course. I'm not intending to change the category structures, my intention was uploading more photos of japanese engines and adding some missing category tags to index the "orphan" galleries/pics. Lk1155 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Nimbus227 and Lk1155: if it amenable to both of you, I'm going to suggest that (1) Lk1155 tries to slow down a little, and commits to trying to fix any messes they made; (2) Nimbus227 takes on a bit of a mentor role here; (3) we take this away from being an administrative matter. I imagine there could be a win there for all concerned and for the project, assuming (as I think is reasonable) that you both have good intentions.
BTW, one side remark @Nimbus227: there are certainly times I'm going that fast, or faster, in an area I know well, and I don't think I'm being "superhuman" when I do that. But I do think I'm being two-decades-experienced. - Jmabel ! talk 05:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I fear this user, like many others, is not open to mentoring or any suggestions. They ignored my first post linking to COM:CAT on their talk page, I gave up posting welcome messages on new user pages on Wikipedia as they were never acknowledged, it seems to be the modern way. Same applies on article talk pages, a new user asks a question, I answer and they don't reply, possibly don't even read it, no manners basically. I am willing to spend time mentoring if the advice is heeded. Let's see what happens in the next few days. Nimbus227 (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've corrected another 20 over-categorisations just now, I think I have caught up with the problem edits. I believe this user is not a native English speaker which could cause problems comprehending guidelines and policies (no racism, just an observation). Nimbus227 (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Lk1155: if there is some language you speak better than English, you can say you'd prefer a mentor who speaks that language, and I'll seek one. Or you can suggest some other accommodation, but you can't just ignore this situation. If you don't respond here, I probably will have to block you. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I hadn't read the part of over-categorization, that was my bad, yes, I already mentioned my misunderstanding.
For some pics I added categories without checking if they were already at a lower level of the sub-tree (there're multiple categories with "to sort" files).
For others the problem arose because I was too cautious in not deleting other categories causing the same problem. Lk1155 (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
More oddness today is multiple additions of a category then immediately removing it, such as here (we don't add engine categories to aircraft images unless it is a very clear full frame image of the engine, we would have to add Olympus 593 to every Concorde image). Newly uploaded files have been uploaded in to a category then the category is removed leaving the file uncategorised (but not marked as such). File renaming requests have been added with unfeasibly long file names being requested, this appears to be a desire to denote exactly what is depicted (excessive and unwieldy detail). I declined a few and renamed them to the parent category name (default for 'Mass renaming'). I really don't have a clue what is going on. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C-46D_(91-1141)_P%26W_R-2800-75.jpg
2. Why did I add a photo of a Ki-46?
Because it's incredibly hard to find KINSEI photos that aren't some low quality scan of a WW2 photo.
Why did I remove the category just a few seconds after adding it?
Because I changed my mind, the other pic was good enough and I considered that adding more wouldn't improve the category. Did that break anything?
3."have been added with unfeasibly long file names being requested"
[name][origin][catalog number].jpg (ie: File:Kawanishi N1K2Ja, Shiden kai. Catalog -- 01 00081868. SDASM Archives.jpg)
I don't see a problem with that rename, was it a different request? Lk1155 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

In this diff [8] the requested name was File:Kawanishi N1K2-Ja (s-n 5312) at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio.jpg. That is ridiculously long, I declined the request. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll avoid the descriptive titles (location, year, situation, origin) to avoid hyperbolic remarks related to filenames. Lk1155 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Labelling my comments hyperbolic is a personal attack. File naming guidance is at Commons:File naming. As I do not wish to get dragged into a debate about Commons guidelines I should leave this to the administrators to deal with. I will continue to correct problems unless edit warring occurs. Nimbus227 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Lk1155: I'll avoid the descriptive titles (I'm sure you know that is the opposite of the rules about file naming) and no response from you about accepting a mentor. I'll give you one more chance either to say you are open to a mentor (from the tone of Nimbus227's last remark it clearly won't be them) and to retract that about deliberately avoiding descriptive titles. You can either do that or the only course of action I see is to block you. (If another admin wants to propose handling this a different way, I'm open to that.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm talking about this kind of titles:
"Nakajima Ki-115, Tsurugi - 01 00086222 SDASM Archives.jpg"
"Yokosuka P1Y Ginga bomber.jpg"
I'll upload with that kind of titles and remove the default title that can be long or weird.
And this "Kotobuki at the Aviation Museum of the UMMC Museum Complex.jpg" (because it's based on other's work).
Mentor? As I said it was my mistake for not reading and misunderstanding categories. I don't think I've done anything wrong since then or engaging in escalation (like edit wars) that that are not of interest to me.
I would like to see less open hostility. Lk1155 (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

On further thought: I'm still trying to avoid a block here. @Lk1155: will you at least agree to:

  1. Slow down. You clearly were trying to go at a speed faster than what you could do well, and so fast that it made it difficult for someone to clean up behind you.
  2. For at least a month or so, in this area, watchlist the files that you work on, look at what others do with them downstream of your work. When you see patterns of changes that are obviously good, learn from them in terms of what you do in the future. When you see changes that you don't understand, ask questions. If you disagree even after explanations, try to do so politely.

Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:JennyWakeman2000 reuploading same file several times

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

They claimed this file is Ichika Hoshino Government logo but instead it is copyrighted anime poster, and they reuploading this deleted file several times. And they doesn’t reply the warning. 6D (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've already warned the user. If they upload it again they will be blocked by me. Herby talk thyme 12:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
... and I declined their undeletion request a few hours ago. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Realcosmixyt repeatedly uploading copyrighted files

[edit]
Latest comment: 11 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Despite warnings on their talk page, this user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted works as "own works" and made no attempt to remedy their behavior. Based5290 (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done. I nominated one file for deletion and blocked the uploader for a week. Taivo (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Nerissa Lyra

[edit]
Latest comment: 11 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nerissa Lyra (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  For stealing pictures from various sites. 0x0a (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Jmabel (self-report)

[edit]
Latest comment: 20 hours ago6 comments6 people in discussion

According to ~2025-39002-43, my reply at Commons:Help desk#A photographer is using creative commons to entrap_users was "nasty". I don't think it was, I think it was simply to the point, but I'd genuinely like to know if others think this was inappropriate of me. Bringing it here myself partly because I doubt this person with a temporary account would know where to bring a complaint (their post was partly about not knowing where to bring a different type of complaint).

I absolutely do not want a "boomerang" here against the temporary account, and I will refrain from further comment here myself unless someone directly addresses a question to me. Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that was a reasonable and not "nasty" response on your part, especially given their subsequent comments. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I wonder if the TA misunderstood "terribly" (as in "this is terribly vague") to mean that their request was "terrible"? I don't see any other way that could have been seen as "nasty". Omphalographer (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is a great quote from the above ip user in that Help Desk discussion: "the points you make are valid, but irrelevant". Jmabel's responses were reasonable and polite. Geoffroi 23:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
There was nothing in the answer by Jmabel that deserves it to be labeled as "nasty". Jmabel was pointing out that we do not accept "overly harsh enforcement of licenses" and that we cannot act as long as the user remains unnamed and the respective web pages unreferenced. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
The original report was very vague. Jmabel did nothing wrong.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Sekar Kinanthi Kidung Wening (Aka User:Nefrit Lazurit, User:Tayuya Karin, User:Fandy Aprianto Rohman, User:Altair Netraphim)

[edit]
Latest comment: 20 hours ago2 comments1 person in discussion

For continuing to steal photos since the last block.

And controlled a sock puppet(or meat puppet) Inkravtania (talk · contribs) to recreate deleted file. 0x0a (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Previously on User:Altair Netraphim

[edit]

0x0a (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Ricardalovesmonuments

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Die Beleidigung in [9] muss ich mir nicht gefallen lassen. Die Benutzerin hat die Aussage zwar nach einigen Minuten von sich aus wieder zurückgenommen, ihr war aber klar, dass ich das mitbekomme. Bitte administrativ ansprechen. Grüße Rufus46 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Xena4patas

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Xena4patas (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) has uploaded copyright violations despite being warned. --Ovruni (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=1128905561"